NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Identified, and Interviewed

Edward Snowden gives his side of the story.

The source of the NSA leaks have finally been identified, and 29 year old Edward Snowden has come forward as the man responsible. Snowden went on record during an interview with The Guardian, and he answered several questions to help us understand his motivation behind the leaks, and what he hopes it will accomplish.

Snowden describes himself as a classic whistleblower, motivated only by a sense of civic duty. "I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified," Snowden told The Guardian. "It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."

Perhaps the most shocking part of the interview was his assessment of how the NSA handles electronic surveillance. Snowden claims that "the NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default." Snowden’s confession comes after ten years of government service, and a record that is difficult to discredit. When asked what he thinks will come of making his identity public he responded simply “nothing good”. "I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets."

Comments

This is good for file sharing and the internet. It brings light on peoples privacy online. Kerndaddy, you are correct. I think we should seal our borders. I wouldn't say America has a true or definitive "culture". We just let everyone come to this country. That's our culture. That's also one of our biggest flaws.

You have too look out for our counties safty some way too prevent another 911. If that intales a little snooping then so be it. Just because one person thinks there is an unjustist being commited its not ok to compromise our security by blabing to to world. if I was making 200,000 dollars a year I would fine better way to go about changing how things like this are done without in dangering the people of the United States. Edward Snowden is a dumb ass and a trator and I hope they set an example of him. Last I heird he was asking hong kong to let him stay to avoid proqusion make him a coward also. If he realy thought he was right then he should have stayed in the US instead of running away. One last thing I heard on the radio this morning he has now disapered from he hotel room.

a "little snooping" is acceptable to keep America safe you say? I say it is absolutely unacceptable.

here is a crazy solution which could be accomplished without driving the final nail into the coffin that was our republic. DEPORT the tens of millions of foreigners that have flooded our nation in the last several decades. then and only then, SEAL THE FREAKING BORDER. after this, we bring the "empire" home. we stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. stop bombing and murdering and orchestrating coups all over the world. stop invading nations. become friends to ALL nations, but have allegiances to none. problem solved.

That's the normal response. "If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind me invading your life in some way."

It's also logicly broken.

1) You are breaking the law. There are enough of them on the books to where anyone who wanted to cause you trouble could.
2) Even if you weren't breaking the law (which you are) having your information in the hands of other people should give you concerns. Identify theft. Stalking. Harrasment etc. There is a reason we now use the term "Going Postal". People can and do abuse information.
3) Wasting your time. Sure the NSA doesn't need your cooperation, but every other agency does. "Can I Inspect your car, if you have nothing to hide you won't mine. CAn we come in. If you have nothing to hide you won't mind. Even once is too often without a reason.

That's what it comes down too. Reason. If there is no reason there should be no investigation. That's why they should get a warrant for invasive searches. That and the first two.

One more thing. The price of freedom has never been free and easy to come by. Just ask yourself what are you willing to sacrfice to keep the freedoms we have. If you don't understand then go ask one of our guys that had too pay for our freedoms with their life. As spoke would say, "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few".

If the world was not the way it is their would not be a need for these steps our government has taken. And to answer your question, yes I am brave enough for freedom. Been deployed twice to prove it and I am not hiding my face either (thats me in Iraq a few tears ago). What have you done except for wine like a baby.

I agree. No one appreciates our soldiers more than I do. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to our country, though I disagree with what you're saying here. I am a Constitutionalist, and I cannot reconcile PRISM with the Constitution in any form. And no, I do not have to wear a military uniform for my opinion to count. If I did, military service would be a mandatory requirement for US citizenship. I truly honor you for what you've done. But if I'm suddenly a whiner or crier, or my opinion carries less weight, simply because I'm a civilian then your service has been meaningless - because it did not preserve my rights as an American. So, I hope you'll understand that though I have the most profound respect for your service, I avidly disagree with you.

Well, the cats out of the bag now. Thank you for your opinion and support they are very important and respected. Hopefully, the program is not blowwn out of proportion. I did not mean too offend or take my frustration out on you. My source of concern is the way Snowden went about releasing classified information.

Browse over to the thread on the Wikileaks guy and you'll find my resolute condemnation of that guy. I don't take it very lightly when people reveal state secrets. Heck, I was even upset with the New York Times for reporting on troop movements during the Bush administration. But the jury's still out on this Snowden guy in my opinion. It may turn out that he just ousted all this stuff to cover his tracks for other illegal activities, and that he is really a problem. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that PRISM is wrong. I'm glad he revealed this program, though I don't know anything of his other activities. But I'm curious, are you simply bothered that he released it at all, or was there something specific about the way he released it that bothered you?

If you support our troops then you should trust in our government in the same way. Lose lips sink ships!! Their is a reason for classified information, leaking it can cause damage to our security, so he was dead wrong as far as I am concerned and also its the law to keep them secret. Snowden was trusted not to reveal the information, but he did not do that because he thought the public should know about these programs after our elected leaders made the decision too created them. In the military your are told to use your chain of command to resolve differences. If the program is supported by the present of the United States of America and the rest of our government it should tell you something. He should have kept he mouth shut to the world and use his chain of command. The next time there is a terrist attack in the US ask yourself if there was anything you could have done to prevent it, within our laws, like our leaders had to after 911.

You swore an oath to protect the constitution. The Patriot act violates the constitution and the bill of rights. As a former military person I CAN NOT and WILL NOT abide by the Patriot Act because it violates the rights of the people I swore to protect.

If one looks back in history at what Americans had to sacrafice during the WWII it was tough going for most. The whole country was united for the war effort and we did what had to be done because it was the right thing to do. If we all lived in a perfect world and not in a state of war then some things might be different. Believe what you want thats your right but stop for a moment and look at the big picture.

look man it's not that complicated. our rights aren't granted by the patriot act. they are given to us by God. our bill of rights and constitution only protect those rights.

it doesn't matter if they pass some stupid garbage like the patriot act or not. if it violates the bill of rights it is not law...EVER.

if it violates my second amendment right, I ignore it, as should every other American.

if they try and violate my fourth amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, then the answer is NO. if they do it any way because fools tell them it's ok, like the mac, and I have evidence of it, I will inform the American people as should ALL americans.

if you think somebody is a criminal for shining the light on the those who are orchestrating the destruction of our republic, then what can I say? you are an idiot. let them wear their chains fellow americans, we don't need them.

the...courts? I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind. you may want our constitution to die just because some yahoo in a black robe decides it going to, but that's not good enough for me.

no, you are right it doesn't change the reality of the world we live in. that is why it is so important to support those who give up EVERYTHING in order to expose the criminal behavior of our government. when the government hides its unconstitutional abuses of power behind the convenient "classified" label, who else can tell us the truth but whistleblowers?

my God that's a stupid comment the mac. when the minute men opened up on the red coats at Lexington, wasn't that doing something illegal to circumvent the system? by your twisted logic, they weren't any better than the original perpetrators.

Mr. Snowden insisted on all 41 slides be published, not just the 5 that were released. He also gave a hel'a'lot more information than these slides, thousands of pages of classified documents. Go Guardian! Welcome Wikileaks!
Of course, his goose will really be cooked then.

Consider the note George Washington sent to war hero and subsequently convicted traitor General Benedict Arnold.

The Commander-in-Chief would have been much happier in an occasion of bestowing commendations on an officer who had rendered such distinguished services to his country as Major General Arnold; but in the present case, a sense of duty and a regard to candor oblige him to declare that he considers his conduct [in the convicted actions] as imprudent and improper.

The man is clearly guilty of releasing classified documents and will be in prison for it. His choice. But I too would have had grave reservations in keeping this information from the public.
I do not care at all about the government getting information on ME, I care for the government getting information on highly placed politicians, businessmen, and leaders of other countries. J. Edgar Hoover, the long time head of the FBI, was able to influence elections and control political figures by keeping secret files on them. Martin Luther King Jr. said that the FBI constantly harassed him with information leaked to the press and letters sent to his family.
When the NSA can vacuum these large data sets, its not too hard to imagine a corrupt politician or the CIA using it to their advantage.

Just FYI what the NSA is not unconstitutional or unlawful. This is what the patriot act was meant to do. Now if you said it was unethical. That's a different story. Maybe next time, we shouldn't panic and pass stupid laws.

Actually the did Compro. What you're talking about is the EFF and other organization lawsuit. Which they still lost as you noted couldn't sue because they couldn't prove they were being spied on. But there were other lawsuits filed that did upheld most of the Patriot Act. You are just citing one of those lawsuit.

That may or may not be true but you will at least gain some respect if YOU can find the section of the Patriot Act that Authorizes wholesale spying on All Americans without any probable cause and without notifying the Companies named in the powerpoint slides when Life and Limb are NOT at stake and when all parties to a conversation are American Citizens residing on American soil

The ACLU's recent report, Reclaiming Patriotism, provides more information on parts of the Patriot Act that need to be amended. The three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States, and in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.

The FACT that the Government "secretly" claims what the public is never told means that you and I cannot possibly know what the Law really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”

Your question was who gave the government the power to do surveillance on U.S. citizens. And was it legal. That was your question. You never asked how they would interpret it. The patriot act did give them the power to do it.